[RTTY] Take Two RTTY Exchange

[Ed Muns]

Don and Bill are both making valid points.  Which one is "right" depends on
the trade-off between accuracy and rate.  Operating in a way to (try to)
achieve perfect accuracy usually results in a lower overall score compared
to accepting some risk of error to keep the rate up.  Similarly, ignoring
accuracy and only focusing on rate will result in a sub-optimal score.  The
sweet spot is often achieved by first streamlining messages in the way Don
describes in this S&P exchange example.  Then, dynamically add your call or
his call to the message (tapping a "my call" and/or "his call" macro at the
beginning and/or end of the main message) if you feel a specific QSO
situation would be better off.  "Better off" meaning there is a
significantly higher probability of logging the wrong station.  Good
operating isn't just about repeating the same messages throughout the
contest, but rather adapting appropriately as conditions change.

Ed - W0YK 

 
> On 1/15/2012 8:14 PM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
> >   When S&P, there is no reason you should ever have to send the 
> > callsign of the run station you are working.

Bill, W6WRT, wrote:
> When I'm running, I want to verify two things from the 
> calling station:
> 
> 1. He's working me and not another station on the frequency 
> that I can't hear.
> 
> and
> 
> 2. That he has my callsign correct.
> 
> Unless the calling station sends my call at some point, how 
> would I verify the above?
> 
> Here's how I like it when I'm running:
> 
> ME:    CQ TEST W6WRT W6WRT CQ
> HIM:    K1XX K1XX K1XX (or only twice if condx good, never just once)
> ME:    K1XX 599 <EXCH> <EXCH> K1XX
> HIM:    W6WRT 599 <EXCH> <EXCH> K1XX
> ME:    K1XX TU W6WRT CQ
> 
> There is some redundancy in the above, but during a busy 
> contest when often there are several stations on the same 
> frequency, some redundancy is a necessity, IMO. Otherwise you 
> are likely to log the wrong station.